Call me Ishmael, is the opening sentence that opens the novel Moby Dick authored by Herman Melville. Ishmael, who is telling the story of Moby Dick, recounts that he is sailing to sea out of a sense of alienation and cultural inadequacy.

.....

Ever since the days of Napoleon's landing upon the shores of Egypt at the very end of the 18th Century and bringing with him the modern era to the Middle East, Islam has been unable to free itself from the shackles of inferiority and self-destructive primal rage that typifies the hatred of modern day Islamic radicalism against Western civilization.

In recent years, despite Israel being at the foci of much of what has been termed the "war of civilizations" between the Western world and Islam, Europe is undergoing a rapid demographic transition that will lead to a large Muslim population harboring an unchanging, hostile attitude toward their national communities.

Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has had extensive experience with treating Muslim youths has identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims and how they interact with Western influences. Without dismissing the intrinsic value of multiculturalism or the need to identify with ones cultural roots Sennels has identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims. They concern anger, self-confidence, the so-called "locus of control" and identity.

Westerners are brought up to think of anger as a sign of weakness, powerlessness and lack of self-control.

The Turks and the Europeans were not at all interested in the oil resources at the time.

Napoleon came with a number of ideas ~ from the French Revolution, over 200 years ago. That was before the internal combustion engine was a big deal. Actually trains were still a novelty.

And Napoleon was still completely uninterested in “liberating” the Arabs of Egypt. Perhaps he was after cotton, since oil wasn’t yet useful then. Whatever. But Machievelli had more to do with his invasion of Egypt than liberte, egalite, fraternite and all that.

Do not take 20th century issues with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and extend them back into the 1700s and 1800s ~ it was a whole different game then, and the Arabs were not their own men at the time.

OK. 1757, then. The British conquered India. They were after tea and screwing the French, not liberating the wogs. 1857. The British suppressed a major rebellion in India, and burnt Delhi to the ground. All Muslims exiled from Delhi for five years. They probably had good reason for exiling the Muslims, but liberating them was not a part of it.

The Europeans, whether in 1757, 1789 or 1857, or 1918, were imperial powers. They were not interested in liberating anyone. Maybe the whipped up the troops, or parliament or the newspapers with that drivel, but that’s not what history’s about. The Union didn’t fight the Confederacy to liberate any slaves, either.

Because they are not free to choose or reject their religion and because they are not free to intellectually/empirically examine their religion with the possible outcome that they might reject it, they are unable to justify their belief in it to others and most importantly to themselves.

This makes them nothing more than mindless pawns...and this fact gnaws at them when they are tempted to consider their place in the increasingly modern world around them.

Furthermore, since a man's faith informs his very being, an antiquated and spurious faith, particularly one that cannot be examined, is a heavy burden for a man to carry...hence this overwhelming angst of the muslim world.

At the time the Brits moved into India the subcontinent was a mess of warring principalities. This is a recurring theme in Indian history ~ empire to warring states to empire to warring states to conquest to warring states to empire ~ and over and over.

Their bad luck to encounter the technologically superior Brits at a time when the princes each felt the Brits could be of use to them.

The Brits are not just the sum of their commercial interests ~ although your typical Indian would like you to think so. They have a grand history of seeking to uplift the poor and extending charity to the oppressed. They even invented what has become modern European democratic forms of government and process.

The East India Tea Company was not a beneficent organization. The true test of an empire’s supposed benevolent motives is when they conflict with their commercial interests. I am not saying that the British Empire was totally bereft of such motives, but they were not what brought them to India, or the North American continent, or anywhere else. In some ways they helped India, such as in eradicating the Thugs and introducing modern medicine and education, but when push came to shove, they massacred Indians, whether Hindus, Sikhs or Moslems, and not so long ago, either. As for the conquest of the Ottomans, that had nothing whatever to do with liberating Arabs or establishing a homeland for Jews.

You dare to call me a phunk biotch?! You blaspheme against the Brophet! You insult the phroud Arab nation! I will have a mob outside your house to drag you into the street and disembowel you, right after we finish disemboweling my neighbor for stealing a leaf off my graphewine! Then our families will feud, and we will phay them money to call it off, then they will kill one of my family and phay the same money back to call off our feud, and the survivors will all gather outside your house and disembowel your infidel a@#. We will make phease between our families just for that.

“The Brits are not just the sum of their commercial interests ~ although your typical Indian would like you to think so. They have a grand history of seeking to uplift the poor and extending charity to the oppressed. They even invented what has become modern European democratic forms of government and process.”

When I read the paragraph, I remember when the day after I came home from the hopsital this recent past summer, and I sat down to watch the opening ceremony to open the 2012 London summer olympics which talked about the contributions the British made both Europe and the world, until I heard Brian Coautus say and in a “jabbing” way to the country the British love to call the (USA) the “nation across the big lake” on the hot debate known as “Obamacare” and the infamous “NHS” when there was a dancing skit of doctors, nurses, and little kids. I was very much put off by that having just come home from the hospital after spending about a week there by it.

At the time, they had an accord with France, Sikes-Picot, in which France would get Syria and Britain would do all the work. So a cabal within the British military and foreign office (Cairo-Khartoum) went about exploiting a loophole in the accord, that the British would not be required to pass territory to France liberated by any indigenous revolts against the Ottomans. The Jews wanted to revolt, because the Ottomans were busily trying to dismantle the Jewish yishuv painstakingly established in the Holy Land over the 19th Century, and slowly over the four preceding centuries. The Turks wanted to expel them all, so they had no choice but to revolt, and found a ready ally in the British. The Arabs were quite happy to remain under the Ottoman boot, but the British manufactured a “revolt” “lead” by Capt. TE Lawrence. Their actual military accomplishment was negligible and strictly for lucre, but the British had the “rebels” advance first into Aqaba and other points of interests that the British had already secured, and called these conquests by an indigenous “revolt”. So The British did their best to screw France out of large chunks of Greater Syria. One large chunk was called a Jewish Homeland, and when France ended up being entitled to what was left of Syria, they gave 70% of this Jewish Homeland to the disappointed Husseinis and called it “Transjordan”. Then they manufactured an anti-Zionist backlash with the help of the Husseini clan (Haj Amin el Husseini), and used that to dampen the whole Jewish Homeland movement, ultimately severely restricting immigration in 1939, and pressuring neutral countries to refuse to accept Jewish refugees for fear they might end up in the Palestine Mandate. Ironically, Haj Amin went with Hitler and nearly lost the war for the British in Iraq when he incited an uprising that somehow failed, followed by a pogrom. So the manipulations of the Cairo-Khartoum cabal to deny the creation of a Jewish Homeland backfired on the British. As for the Jews, many of them went from being loyal subjects to open rebellion, ultimately making the Mandate unmanageable and leading to the creation of the Jewish State.

So yes, the British did create the Jewish State, just as they created the United States and a free India, by pissing off the most capable leaders until they rebelled. But as Lin Yutang says, the Briton is a wonderful fellow, so long as he stays home. He’s educated, democratic, and essentially decent, G-d-fearing and hard working, with a taste for literature and art. When the British had an empire, they did disseminate those values. But ultimately, being an empire for extended centuries makes bastards of even the best of us. The same was true of the ancient Athenians and Romans. As for the Islamic empires, they started out as bastards and remain so to this day, except in the brief periods when they tried not to take their insane religion seriously.

According to Sennels, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred. In Pakistan, the numbers approach 70%. Even in England, more than half of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins, and in Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.

The numbers are equally devastating in other important Muslim countries: 67% in Saudi Arabia, 64% in Jordan and Kuwait, 63% in Sudan, 60% in Iraq, and 54% in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official demarcation for being classified as retarded, increases by an astonishing 400 percent among children of cousin marriages.

80
posted on 10/02/2012 5:36:18 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

Sennels says that the ability to enjoy and produce knowledge and abstract thinking is simply lower in the Islamic world. He points out that the Arab world translates just 330 books every year, about 20% of what Greece alone does.

In the last 1,200 years years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year. Seven out of 10 Turks have never even read a book.

Sennels points out the difficulties this creates for Muslims seeking to succeed in the West. A lower IQ, together with a religion that denounces critical thinking, surely makes it harder for many Muslims to have success in our high-tech knowledge societies.

Only nine Muslims have every won the Nobel Prize, and five of those were for the Peace Prize. According to Nature magazine, Muslim countries produce just 10 percent of the world average when it comes to scientific research (measured by articles per million inhabitants).

In Denmark, Sennels native country, Muslim children are grossly overrepresented among children with special needs. One-third of the budget for Danish schools is consumed by special education, and anywhere from 51% to 70% of retarded children with physical handicaps in Copenhagen have an immigrant background.

Learning ability is severely affected as well. Studies indicated that 64% of school children with Arabic parents are still illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The immigrant drop-out rate in Danish high schools is twice that of the native-born.

Mental illness is also a product. The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness. The increased risk of insanity may explain why more than 40% of the patients in Denmarks biggest ward for clinically insane criminals have an immigrant background.

According to Sennels, One study based on 300,000 Americans shows that the majority of Muslims in the USA have a lower income, are less educated, and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.

81
posted on 10/02/2012 5:43:11 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

The Brits came to North America because the King of Spain carved the place up and gave it away to his relatives ~ except for one relatively small part between what is now North Carolina and New York. it was particularly pitiful ~and the Brits came there ~ and started up what would eventually turn into the world's most powerful and greatest nation.

But in the beginning the Brits were barely able to defend their own stuff in England, and the battle to the top took centuries.

By 1700 the King of England was using it as a place to send refugees to England or Quakers ~ still, earlier, the Swedes had pretty much dispatched most of the Eastern Sa'ami tribes to cut down pine trees for shipping, and the Dutch had worked out some of their problems and had a piece of the fur business there in manhattan island.

The pope had granted most of North and South America to Spain, and the rest of it to Portugal. England was protestant, so didn’t have to listen to the Pope. Spain, anyway, was in decline, so couldn’t really exploit its empire. The Protestant countries started sending privateers to prey off their shipping, and then outright colonized. The Dutch were originally part of Spain, then gained independence, which is why they felt free to go after the pine trees, since they were also Protestant, I think. So if King Henry VIII hadn’t been randy for Ann Bolin, America would never have happened, or everyone would be speaking Spanish or Dutch, or something.

Possibly. Coligny and Ribault conspired together to start a colony in Carolina ~ which probably wasn't as outrageous as historians imagine since the rural Bretons at the time were just fine with King Philippe.

The deal was France and Spain had a treaty of commerce and amity that allowed even French protestants to participate in the Atlantic trade with Spanish ports.

The specific Swedes who came to America to cut pine trees ALSO had close ties to the same rural Protestant Breton nobility who were trying to get Spain to take over Brittany!

May have been the Swedes simply went to the same place Coligny was offered ~ which would be today's Pennsylvania.

When the Spanish began surveying the lines specified in the Treaty of London (1604) Greater NY CITY are as we know it was South of the line surveyed between Acadia (Owned by Scotland) AND Virginia (Owned by no one in particular ~ all European Protestants could go there apparently)

Ribault's failed colony was South of the Virginia/North Carolina line so it was out of bound and well within what Spain considered La Florida.

England didn't come into a power position in the Americas until after the Glorious Restoration ~ by then economics and populations had changed enough they had the upper hand over Spain and France. By 1700 it was pretty Clear England and the Scandinavians were going to be dominating Europe's direction for a long time. I"m not sure the English in the 1700s drew any clear distinctions between themselves and the Scandinavians and the northern Germans.

I will, but just in case you know before I start reading for the answer-why do they keep doing it when they know the result? No matter how irrational they are on other matters, they must know continuing to force first-cousin marriages will continue to weaken their line.

Different animal? Yes and no. The Ottoman Turks were Oghuz Turks and they took over the collapsed Seljuk Khanate. The only reason they were in Anatolia in the first place was that the Seljuk Turks won (or at least Byzantine infighting lost) the Battle of Manzikert.

“Only nine Muslims have every won the Nobel Prize, and five of those were for the Peace Prize. According to Nature magazine, Muslim countries produce just 10 percent of the world average when it comes to scientific research (measured by articles per million inhabitants).”

This is because the Nobel family is part of a Zionist conspiracy to exclude Muslims. See how many Jooos! have these Nobel prizes? There! See!

“In Denmark, Sennels native country, Muslim children are grossly overrepresented among children with special needs. One-third of the budget for Danish schools is consumed by special education, and anywhere from 51% to 70% of retarded children with physical handicaps in Copenhagen have an immigrant background.

Learning ability is severely affected as well. Studies indicated that 64% of school children with Arabic parents are still illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The immigrant drop-out rate in Danish high schools is twice that of the native-born.

Mental illness is also a product. The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness. The increased risk of insanity may explain why more than 40% of the patients in Denmarks biggest ward for clinically insane criminals have an immigrant background.”

And you say marrying first cousins is bad?! Crazy people fight Jihaad better than anyone! If they are suicidal, you can make them suicide bombers. If they are paranoid, you can make them believe conspiracy theories. If they are schizophrenic, you can make them pieceful one moment, homicidal the next! If they are bipolar, same thing, only with manic energy! And with learning disabilities, they do not question the Holy Quran. The only danger is if they hallucinate, and start thinking they are prophets, too. First cousin marriages are the bomb!

The Ottomans tried to expand into Europe and failed, then turned their attention towards Egypt and Syria. They conquered the Mamlukes in Egypt and conquered Syria and points East, defeating the Persians. But they never conquered Persia or Afghanistan and India, all of which were part of a separate empire ruled by the Mogol/Seljuk/Sunni Persian kings, until the British came at them in 1757. The Ottomans were the Turkic speakers that the Seljuks settled into Anatolia, and who evolved into the genocidal mother-f@#$ers who tried to eradicate the Armenians and Greeks in Anatolia, oppressed and overtaxed the Muslim peasants, and made the Middle East into the s@#$-pile in which Napoleon found it.

The Mogol empire to the east, by contrast, was usually much more tolerant and less serious about Sharia. They were even sometimes fair and just to Hindus, and one of the first Mogol rulers of Northern India was known to be a heavy drinker, forbidden under Sharia. These were the people who built the Taj Mahal (not the one in Atlantic City), wrote lots of Urdu and Pharsi poetry about romantic love. Twilight in Delhi by Ahmad Ali captures the culture, and it is not at all like that of the Turks of Turkey.

Ishmael is truly only the ancestor of the Nejd Arabs (or "true" Arabs) - those from the area around Mecca and Medina

Egyptians are not truly these Arabs, nor are people from the Maghreb or Syria or Iraq. The Syrians and Iraqis are Semitic yes, but descendents of earlier Semitic incursions. The Maghreb people are a mix of Berber, Greek and other European and Arab.

99
posted on 10/02/2012 5:47:17 PM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.